Facts
Two doctors jointly bought premises for their medical practice, holding the beneficial interest in equal shares. After their partnership broke down, Dr Rodway sought a sale. Dr Landy opposed it and proposed arrangements under which the doctors could occupy different parts of the building and run separate practices. The judge made an order for separate occupation and apportioned the cost of works needed to divide the premises.
Issue
Could the court make an order under section 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 restricting each beneficiary’s occupation under section 13? Could the order require them to share the cost of the works?
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Decision
The Court of Appeal upheld the order. The judge was entitled to find that physical division of the premises was practicable and that separate occupation was preferable to a sale on the evidence. The order divided use of the premises without partitioning the beneficial ownership. Section 13(3) was wide enough to impose a reasonable condition requiring the beneficiaries to share the cost of alterations.
The court dismissed Dr Rodway’s appeal and Dr Landy’s cross-appeal on costs.
Reported citations: [2001] Ch 703, [2001] 2 WLR 1775, [2001] 3 EGLR 78, [2001] WTLR 755, [2001] 44 EG 151
Source: Full judgment
